The Tonight Show - Virgin Media One

horseburger

Tony EH wrote: »

Watched this last night for the first time. Christ it was awful.

So sorry to see Vincent go.

I think if they gave more time to one, or maybe two topics on each show, on programmes like The Claire Byrne Show, or this programme, the discussions would be more in depth, than covering, three or four items, during the show and only giving less time to each item.

Often, there isn't the time on television shows - and radio current affairs shows - to go into detail in a discussion, with ad breaks, and reading people's twitter comments, and then going to another ad break and coming back after the break, to read the headlines of the next day's papers.

During the 2015 referendum, on The Last Word on Today FM, Matt Cooper presented a detailed hour long item with both sides of the debate, and I thought that was very useful, as there was more time given to analyzing the perspectives of those being interviewed.

https://www.todayfm.com/The-Last-Word-Marriage-Referendum-Debate

Have you heard any of the recent The Stand With Eamon Dunphy interviews? Each of his interviews are around 45 - 50 minutes to an hour long and more time is given to exploring the issue being discussed.

https://www.thestandwitheamondunphy.com/

https://soundcloud.com/thestandwitheamondunphy

_Whimsical_

God it was desperate last night!
If that's the level of debate we can be accustomed to now God help us as a nation. The only person who made any interesting points that might have stimulated discussion was John McGuirk, which I have to say I didn't expect. However, did he manage to get one whole point across? No, because he was interrupted at every pass. It was frustrating to watch. Ivan was mute, Matt was useless throwing out the tired old accusations before sentences were finished.
John : My car was stolen....
Matt : "you're victim blaming!"
The rest of them were just on their soapbox lecturing the public on what to think. That's not debate.

I also thought Elaine's points were somewhat ridiculous. "do you teach your son that if sees a drunk girl he should help her and get her a taxi or rape her?". Obviously rape is appalling, obviously it'd be nice if we'd all help every drunk person home, but they're everywhere! If a man is going to aid every drunk woman he comes across that's his night out done for.

How is either perspective empowering of women? Do we just drink as much as we want and then lay around on the side of the road drunk in the hope that a nice man is passing to get us a taxi?

Why can't we say neither men nor women should be drinking so much as to behave in a manner dangerous to their safety or that of others?

Also it's not true that "don't get too drunk, mind yourself" is advice only given to women going out. One of my best male friends was going out in an area where there have been violent crimes recently and I didn't think twice about saying to him "Don't drink too much, keep your wits about you, don't go out for a smoke on your own!". I didn't mean that if he got stabbed or injured that it would be his fault. Far from it. It's just that self protection is the best defence against everything, there's no sphere of life where you can rely on the benevolence of others and abandon all your senses to the 4 winds and hope for the best.
Rape victims have been blamed 100% too many time, that has to stop, but blaming someone and advising them to take care are not the same thing.

The whole show was a depressing example of how wildly polarised debate get's you nowhere. It's as though according to elements of the media you're either actively encouraging rape and condoning it as a wonderful passtime or you're against it. We can't even tolerate any remark reflecting any nuance.

Also Ivan and Matt, they looked like we were keeping them from their beds.

I have to add I thought the lady at the beginning who was a rape victim was wonderful. Her story brought across the horror of rape and the dreadful way some people talk about victims but her points were measured and more reflective of the average sensible person than the ladies speaking later on.

Galwayguy35

Lady Chatterton wrote: »

It's pretty clear that Sarah McInerney is no fan of George's.

I'd say it safe to assume from her comments that she is one of the 20 Newstalk employees who signed the petition.

Yeah with work colleagues like her who needs enemies, talk about sticking the knife in.

Elaine Crowley was bordering on hysterical at times.

the two of them were ridiculous compared with an actual rape victim who was speaking in the first segment and who accepted Hooks apology and spoke very eloquently.

Galwayguy35

Don't expect to see McGuirk on again anytime soon, despite being outnumbered three to one and with Cooper against him as well he held his own and got his point across, something that seems to have really annoyed Sarah McInerney.

I'd just like to add not all Galway people are as aggressive as her.

trixiebust

The intro to the show is terrible. The two boys standing, hands in pockets, looking gormless.

Television & the quality of it, particularly in Irish stations is dire.

Tony EH

McGuirk's point was stupid though. Having your car nicked is absolutely no comparison to being raped and frankly as soon as he started into that rubbish I knew he was in for it.

We need to get away from these insipid "me car was stolen/me house was burgled" type equations. They have no place in the discussion at all.

Unfortunately, the two girls didn't tackle it well either.

I normally like McInerney, but McGuirk's silly comparison was like a red rag to a bull. I don't know anything about the other one. I don't watch TV3 women's programmes, but her point about "teaching" young men not to rape is just insulting.

I know it's only baby steps yet with this format, but it's pretty awful so far and the two presenters are the worst thing about it. Also, as mentioned above, there are just too many things being talked about, that everybody is just jumping to the soundbyte answer instead of thinking clearly about what they're actually saying and it's coming across like a pub conversation.

Maybe it'll kick up a gear. I won't hold my breath though.

brooke 2

Tony EH wrote: »

Watched this last night for the first time. Christ it was awful.

So sorry to see Vincent go.

It was like an extension of the 'Elaine' show. :mad:

brooke 2

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

God it was desperate last night!
If that's the level of debate we can be accustomed to now God help us as a nation. The only person who made any interesting points that might have stimulated discussion was John McGuirk, which I have to say I didn't expect. However, did he manage to get one whole point across? No, because he was interrupted at every pass. It was frustrating to watch. Ivan was mute, Matt was useless throwing out the tired old accusations before sentences were finished.
John : My car was stolen....
Matt : "you're victim blaming!"
The rest of them were just on their soapbox lecturing the public on what to think. That's not debate.

I also thought Elaine's points were somewhat ridiculous. "do you teach your son that if sees a drunk girl he should help her and get her a taxi or rape her?". Obviously rape is appalling, obviously it'd be nice if we'd all help every drunk person home, but they're everywhere! If a man is going to aid every drunk woman he comes across that's his night out done for.

How is either perspective empowering of women? Do we just drink as much as we want and then lay around on the side of the road drunk in the hope that a nice man is passing to get us a taxi?

Why can't we say neither men nor women should be drinking so much as to behave in a manner dangerous to their safety or that of others?

Also it's not true that "don't get too drunk, mind yourself" is advice only given to women going out. One of my best male friends was going out in an area where there have been violent crimes recently and I didn't think twice about saying to him "Don't drink too much, keep your wits about you, don't go out for a smoke on your own!". I didn't mean that if he got stabbed or injured that it would be his fault. Far from it. It's just that self protection is the best defence against everything, there's no sphere of life where you can rely on the benevolence of others and abandon all your senses to the 4 winds and hope for the best.
Rape victims have been blamed 100% too many time, that has to stop, but blaming someone and advising them to take care are not the same thing.

The whole show was a depressing example of how wildly polarised debate get's you nowhere. It's as though according to elements of the media you're either actively encouraging rape and condoning it as a wonderful passtime or you're against it. We can't even tolerate any remark reflecting any nuance.

Also Ivan and Matt, they looked like we were keeping them from their beds.

I have to add I thought the lady at the beginning who was a rape victim was wonderful. Her story brought across the horror of rape and the dreadful way some people talk about victims but her points were measured and more reflective of the average sensible person than the ladies speaking later on.

Wasn't it ironic that the only woman on the show who had a kind word to say about George Hook was Niamh Cosgrave, who was brutally raped in France a few years ago? She remarked that he was very brave to ring her and seemed very upset when he was talking to her. She made the point that as a result of his clumsy comments, he had drawn attention to the subject of rape and that it was a good thing it was being discussed. Her magnanimity was in sharp contrast to the venomous comments which spewed from Elaine Crowley and Sarah McInerney. SMcI seemed to think she and her cohorts in Newstalk had done society a favour by getting rid of George Hook. John McGuirk had to remind her that the media was not the same thing as society. Mind you, he was lucky to get even that said, with all the interruptions from Matt Cooper, Elaine C. and Sarah M. :mad:

horseburger

Tony EH wrote: »

McGuirk's point was stupid though. Having your car nicked is absolutely no comparison to being raped and frankly as soon as he started into that rubbish I knew he was in for it.

We need to get away from these insipid "me car was stolen/me house was burgled" type equations. They have no place in the discussion at all.

Unfortunately, the two girls didn't tackle it well either.

I normally like McInerney, but McGuirk's silly comparison was like a red rag to a bull. I don't know anything about the other one. I don't watch TV3 women's programmes, but her point about "teaching" young men not to rape is just insulting.

I know it's only baby steps yet with this format, but it's pretty awful so far and the two presenters are the worst thing about it. Also, as mentioned above, there are just too many things being talked about, that everybody is just jumping to the soundbyte answer instead of thinking clearly about what they're actually saying and it's coming across like a pub conversation.

Maybe it'll kick up a gear. I won't hold my breath though.

I think what he was saying though, is that his car was stolen, partly because he left his window open. I think when he said it, he was emphassing that he left his car window open, making it vulnerable to being stolen. I think that's what he was saying, unless I am wrong on that.

Tony EH

I know what he was trying to say, but it doesn't make it any less redundant for a defence of Hook's "blame the victim" comment. A lapse in one's responsibility for their own safety doesn't mean they share the blame with somebody for an attack upon their person.

It's a clumsy analogy that has no real place in the discussion.

At best, they can be mildly admonished for not observing strict rules regarding personal safety - which is utterly pointless anyhow, after the fact, and does more damage than anything else. But, they can't really be blamed (partly or otherwise) for their attack. That lies solely with the attacker.

hotmail.com

brooke 2 wrote:

Wasn't it ironic that the only woman on the show who had a kind word to say about George Hook was Niamh Cosgrave, who was brutally raped in France a few years ago? She remarked that he was very brave to ring her and seemed very upset when he was talking to her. She made the point that as a result of his clumsy comments, he had drawn attention to the subject of rape and that it was a good thing it was being discussed. Her magnanimity was in sharp contrast to the venomous comments which spewed from Elaine Crowley and Sarah McInerney. SMcI seemed to think she and her cohorts in Newstalk had done society a favour by getting rid of George Hook. John McGuirk had to remind her that the media was not the same thing as society. Mind you, he was lucky to get even that said, with all the interruptions from Matt Cooper, Elaine C. and Sarah M.

A lot of women fed up with the sexist attitudes towards women by men and some women. It's understandable really for women to feel angry about it from time to time.

quintana76

Cooper has really gone to hell these days. It's takes a long walk up the trendy liberal media promenade before you get to the point where you dismiss all of your listeners who have doubts about the Halawa affair as racist. He admitted on the Tonight Show that by far the majority of his radio texts were anti the' sainted' view that the media pushes.
Yet he admitted he just dismissed them as racist, nothing less, ergo: No further discussion necessary.

He used to be better than that. Must be the circles he mixes in.

Galwayguy35

I think a better way would be to rotate with one presenter each night instead of having the 2 of them on at the same time.

As for people saying Vinny is a loss to TV3, yeah back in the day I'd agree but he should have gone years ago, age caught up with him and he was forgetting the points he was trying to make.

NIMAN

I caught about 15min of one show, and it was pretty amateurish. The presenters appeared to be trying too hard or something.

But to be honest I am in no way surprised as MCs Last Word has gone to pot for quality over the last couple of years. Don't know how exactly to explain it, but for me its tabloid now when it used to be broadsheet.

brooke 2

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I think a better way would be to rotate with one presenter each night instead of having the 2 of them on at the same time.

As for people saying Vinny is a loss to TV3, yeah back in the day I'd agree but he should have gone years ago, age caught up with him and he was forgetting the points he was trying to make.

Yes, I think rotation would be a much better idea. At least Ivan would be able to have his say instead of playing mute beside Matt. :mad: I was prepared to have an open mind, even though I had my doubts about the joint presenting. But, watching Cooper, Crowley and McInerney on Thursday showed only too clearly how the ground lies and I do not like it at all!!

Galwayguy35

brooke 2 wrote: »

Yes, I think rotation would be a much better idea. At least Ivan would be able to have his say instead of playing mute beside Matt. :mad: I was prepared to have an open mind, even though I had my doubts about the joint presenting. But, watching Cooper, Crowley and McInerney on Thursday showed only too clearly how the ground lies and I do not like it at all!!

Ivan Yates is a very capable interviewer in his own right and it just seems like he isn't being let ask any questions at all.

At least he is impartial unlike Cooper.

McInerney and Crowley let themselves down badly, it's possible to disagree with a person without shouting them down and getting hysterical.

brooke 2

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Ivan Yates is a very capable interviewer in his own right and it just seems like he isn't being let ask any questions at all.

At least he is impartial unlike Cooper.

McInerney and Crowley let themselves down badly, it's possible to disagree with a person without shouting them down and getting hysterical.

I really enjoy listening to Ivan on The Hard Shoulder. Would rarely if ever tune into Matt Cooper. That voice of his! :rolleyes: Too bad Ivan was not given The Tonight Show on his own. He did a fine job standing in for VB on many occasions.

horseburger

brooke 2 wrote: »

I really enjoy listening to Ivan on The Hard Shoulder. Would rarely if ever tune into Matt Cooper. That voice of his! :rolleyes: Too bad Ivan was not given The Tonight Show on his own. He did a fine job standing in for VB on many occasions.

I think Michael Clifford would be good. He presented numerous times on Vincent Browne's show, and he has also presented The Last Word.

horseburger

horseburger wrote: »

I think Michael Clifford would be good. He presented numerous times on Vincent Browne's show, and he has also presented The Last Word.

For me he would have been the obvious choice. Straight talking and common sense and at the same time very fair and impartial.

Ol' Donie

What an odd show this is. Why do they have two anchors? Two anchors who this afternoon were head to head on rival radio stations?

Why not give one of them Mon-Wed and the other Thurs -Fri?

Harry Angstrom

Would be great if this happened again...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU48FaWx7cM

RayM

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

Would be great if this happened again...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU48FaWx7cM

Not a chance - they're probably bound and gagged in the next room.

RayM

Ol' Donie wrote: »

What an odd show this is. Why do they have two anchors? Two anchors who this afternoon were head to head on rival radio stations?

Why not give one of them Mon-Wed and the other Thurs -Fri?

A right pair of anchors.

tylercheribini

Totty alert, middle eastern women can be so hot.

Harry Angstrom

tylercheribini wrote: »

Totty alert, middle eastern women can be so hot.

Probably something to do with the very high temperatures over there.

Five Green Bottles

Me thinks presenters on North Korean Radio & TV would have a little more freedom and flexibility to be themselves and speak their minds than Yeats does both on Newstalk radio and TV 3. This PC Crap will destroy him and it really doesn't suit him at all.

Oh! North Korea doesn't have Twitter and False Book platforms where nameless, faceless people can destroy a good and decent man for speaking his mind and portraying an opinion that most straight and level headed people would support and agree with.

horseburger

Ivan Yates referring to our great noble leader as "Leo".

They should cover less items per show and give each item more time.

On BBC Radio Ulster, on Talkback with William Crawley, the show is 90 minutes long and they will give pretty much 30 - 40 minutes or more for the main item of discussion, during the first hour of the show.

It results in a more detailed discussion, where guests are not interrupted and rushed and hassled into giving answers, within a 10-12 minute slot per item. Granted, the BBC isn't under the same pressure to include ad breaks, but it can be frustrating listening to items on tv, and on radio, where a current affairs show includes four or five items per show, and the guests just end up speaking briefly, not getting to fully explain their perspectives in a debate, with two or three ad breaks, breaking up the flow of debate, in an hour long show.

Here is the podcast of the main item on today's BBC Radio Ulster Talkback show, and link to hear todays show.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b095qls0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05hhhj9

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05hh6pb

Tony EH

Yates is right here on this sugar tax crap. It'll just be stroke politics and end up going up and up every year.

Can't imagine too many people being for this, yet TV3 has three people for this rubbish and one guy against it, who's only against it for business reasons.

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Ivan, but at least he's said something intelligent at last on the show.

We need a shovel for the good bishop

It wasnt me123

I'm for the sugar tax. If people are too ignorant to see the long term effects of excess sugar in their diet, then someone needs to tell them.

This bishop shouldn't even have air time - f*ckin catholic ponses with no medical knowledge, blathering about women's sexuality. Mind their own bl**dy business